Skip to main content

tv   BOS Full Board of Supervisors 71916  SFGTV  July 22, 2016 4:00am-6:01am PDT

4:00 am
adopt a rigorous policy and what the can share about the process and timeline of activities will be for adopting and religion reduce process on the crisis intervention and making sure that the department is there's a discipline for instance, of complaints for racial prevailing for the demographic data release and share the plans what it will be and lastly looking at establish a more objective for budged investigations and come up with a process for that this i've asked and sat down twice with the police department i have extended this meeting with the police chief and asked
4:01 am
what the metrics should be in terms of what will be they process for achieving overseeing processes and reforms reforms that have yet to be adopted and how they'll implement the reforms that are adopted and not been implemented throughout the ranks and file of the department so what i've crafted this reserve proposal to be would be that we will hold $30 million on reserve of the 0 police departments budget that leaves $540 million left in the police department budget they've spend on deployment and train and all the other services that the police department provides and that they would have they funds released in 3 sections of the board of supervisors when they present their progress towards the perform on november 1st,
4:02 am
2016, and second february 2017 and may second 2017. the first right of refusal november terrors according this this proposal the first presentation the department will be required to share with us the the document talk about how they've move forward the timeline with detail on those reformed the department again, the chief acting chief chaplain those are things the department is doing if this is the say case by case not hard to tell us the process for doing those things the contingent on november 1st presentation of they timeline of activities with the reforms we can releases $10 million the subsequent release of dollars on february 7th on the mere presentation of little dependent on how it is achieving the
4:03 am
progress on the documentation they share on november 1st and again, a mere presentation we're not holding up police dollars only in the police department did not provide provocations presentations on the process - i've been part of discussion on releasing the reserve funds 0 on hundreds of mental illness of dollars and on the waters improvement system or other projects we don't hold up the work of developing the plans or helping to plan for deployment services we just make sure that we get a presentation on what the design of something will be and then release the funds when they're ready to be implemented
4:04 am
i've not seen a release of a receiver or reserve that held up the departments way to carry on work and modern anything i'm trying to create a process of transparency what the departments is working on and a level of accountability with the board of supervisors and colleagues i'd like a motion to put $30 million of the police departments budget on full board reserve pending presentations of the do prototype acting chief chaplain or his successor whoever that might be and the police commission the police department does oppose this they believe this measure will hinder they ability to carry out the services i've talked about with the controller's office and the district attorney we know that
4:05 am
is not the case mark farrell putting $30 million on reserve will not hinders any activity and colleagues, i urge your support >> thank you supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president i will not be supporting this motion. >> oh, wait before supervisor wiener a second for supervisor avalos motion seconded by supervisor mar supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president i'll not be supporting in before i explain why i want to hip tip any hat to supervisor avalos i think this is a hard issue i know that initially madam chair rosales is probation officer a much uniform larger reserve and listened and talked about with a lot of people with the department and commission and those and i think even though there is disagreement i think
4:06 am
came up were put a lot of thought i appreciate that even though we're not on the same page on this issue if i thought this budget reserve will key up reform i would be open to reform i don't think that will make the reform going fast they happening as was speak and i think they'll continue to happen i what i don't want to do interject go any uncertainty into the police department we don't have enough police officers putting them through other academy as as quickly as possible with good training we are do not have nearly enough beat officers on the streets and not enough officers during the traffic enforcement we meeting need to be paying attention and focused on actually doing what
4:07 am
the police department needs to do in terms of public safety and the department didn't have the staffing needs to do all we want and not create an uncertainty in the police departments budget it is two important of the public safety of our city i appreciate where that is coming from and appreciate supervisor avalos i think throughout full approach i will not be supporting the motion. >> thank you supervisor yee. >> in regards to the meetings on those particular items that supervisor avalos has articulated i absolutely agree that we should have barriers on these to see how we're doing with the reforms and if we were to ask for the
4:08 am
hearings we support it. >> one of the things i thought about this concept of holding some of the funding on reserves i'm not totally against it certainly when business calls for that i will support it as the budget process which we put some of the overtime funding on reserves that's fine now i'm also in the mindset here we go we are reilly dealing with new leadership and one of the things i'd like to do for new leadership in any department is whether a new departments or not you know something you have a
4:09 am
chance to prove yourself prove yourself and get those things done get them done i want to give the person my confidence i'll support them and by putting money into the letters didn't really to me indicate i have confidence so i will not be supporting in ask. >> thank you kneeing supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president there's been a lot of talk about police reform and we've been working this for 0 longed i think that setting any portion of a budget on reserve is absent serious thing i appreciate that supervisor avalos has modified his proposal to the amount set aside maybe not the term but an amount put in reserve but also in a way that didn't impede with
4:10 am
the day work of the police department i believe televised the reform that is needed at the police department is not going on to map unless consequences and the only going back to what supervisor wiener said somehow afraid of putting money into the reserve will jeopardy that only an issue if the reserves don't move forward if this department is commented and really real about reform itself and making the changes that all of us have called for then setting a small portion of the budgeted in a reserve until it is proven those reforms are going forward shouldn't be a problem i want to thank madam chair rosales and happy to support this effort if we are serious about the reform
4:11 am
we're all talking about business and opportunity this is an opportunity to demonstrate that. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you so i know that under has been comments made about the $30 million and not exaggerating the police department i want to clarify for the record what that impact will be i think i see our acting chief here will you be able to speak to $30 million on reserve what is impact the police department. >> and again supervisor tang speak through the chair. >> if i may ask the deputy chief to come up. >> oh,a chief. >> sorry. >> a (laughter) well, just real fast i have had robust conversations with. >> please identify office use. >> i'm acting chief tony chaplain robust conversations about the professional proposal
4:12 am
i was taken auerbach by $30 million during the conversations we're going back and forth he was talking about 15 to $20 million i was planning to deal with that $30 million is double what i'm about to talk about i had your cfo prepare 3 models that sounds like great what you're saying i have to operate what i know have access as i've illustrated a huge issue with the voting with the board of supervisors and everything we're talking to go by the way side and this reserve will put that money in jeopardy i have to operate without the money and in model one to swelling cancel any september recruit class that saves me $03 million and
4:13 am
additional $2 million and 200 and 11 recruits in 2016 that saves me a total of $9 million and model two this is salaries i'll have to suspend all police services under the general fund operating budget closing the department from june 16th through june 30th that brings the 15 mental illness under model 3 reduction of proposal services i'll have to four love you 200 police officers that will save $15 million for 88 officers that is maybe to the 15 million i say 15 i thought supervisor peskin that's where we were at and the final to for allow the officers of 2017 b will save me $15 million the issue with the whole thing the
4:14 am
odds of the coin just for the record madam chair rosales for referencing the officers that lost they lives in baton rouge and another officer was murdered today while wrapper sitting in the chambers we've asked the police officers of san francisco to do a lot of things and they've agreed and now put this on reserve this sends a message the brfrsdz and the city and county didn't believe we're doing anything we've asked for the procedural criminal justice system to reengineering the use of force to make sure that the public feels we are acting in they best interests when it comes to how we do that and adapted body cameras and the police officers association has issues with the statement made
4:15 am
in public but in private there's been a lot of progress made i think outside the box that is anti progress that sentsdz the wrong message are we have so many groups in san francisco police department and not one of those groups say we are right-handed to change we're not quite frankly and everything we've push it across the table i agree to the- we're constituting checkbooks across i dabble and quite frankly nothing being asks of us the police commission is the body that holds us accountable for things every wednesday when i go to the meeting we have robust discussion and report to the body i don't think there is a exploring sign to bring it to this ended. >> thank you very much chief. >> so all of that really just to say that i have serious
4:16 am
concerns of putting this known on reserve mostly the majority of police department budget is commodities of the bodies on the streets serving the community and several asked a lot from the police department and acknowledge supervisor avalos and supervisor cowen and other colleagues that working hard to advocate for changes within the police department i know that is difficult for the force to adopt the culture shift and to take on changes we've asked of them to hold the hostage money for the department i think that just really the wrongs thing to do so today i'll nobody support putting the money on reservoirs and allocate say that about 5 budget seasons ago this board voted unanimously to supports increasing the academy classes for the officers at that time, monopoly made any comments what it is to side to reform our
4:17 am
police force in connection with that so, now fast forward to the point we're almost about to complete achieving one thousand 9 had officers 6 that became a 5 year hiring plan is completely wrong if we're going to ask the police department to take on the issues we need to give them the cat resources thank you. >> supervisor farrell. >> you're next on the roster. >> thank you supervisor president london breed i just want to quickly comment i like many of my colleagues thank to supervisor avalos for bringing this forward i'm not support but i understand where supervisor avalos it coming from from any perspective thank you to the police department and the chief taken seriously by the
4:18 am
commission from any preserve public safety i don't want to jeopardy any fund for the officers only the street and make sure from the priority should be funding the department as you know, i continue to have amends from every single about public safety and around the city from my perspective he concur with the reforms from any perspective putting this in reserve is not the rights thing to do. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you madam president first of all, when a board is asked to reserve $30 million out of a $500,788,000,000 budget that is minute school this is
4:19 am
done this is done nor many departments i have profound respective for the men and women of the san francisco police department but with all due respect the words that someone gave you about the day to day classes and thinking the $30 million should not be part of our budget is disappoint it had not true not correct this is mark farrell a mechanism to have some level of accountability over a set of policy issues that we all want to achieve yes, it is a little bit of leverage but an opportunity to cheese cake in when you need your 3, $10 million chunks of money you'll explain how the reforms and if you don't hit our milestones we'll have an opportunity to understand whereas going on and you have the opportunities to explain and we can continue to make sure that those reform with we all president reagon moving a pace
4:20 am
but frankly the notation the sky is failing and the classes will be concealed is not true. >> supervisor kim. >> i was bewilder by the cuts you may have to make i'm looking at the proposal i wanted to ask our intern chief what exactly to provide for the board in other words, to get the budgetary explores you'll need. >> my understanding madam chair rosales said before she's not 100 percent clear on the metrics and still accounting but just to address supervisor peskin said. >> i'm sorry, i just minded you to answer any question i would asking for a response from commissioner peskin. >> did i answer that. >> no. you didn't answer that what will you have to do for the
4:21 am
board to realize. >> mines it is worked by supervisor avalos that he's not 100 percent sure on what the metrics will be all over the place has ideas what he wants it to be but to this day not received in writing the specifics for each meeting we went over that orally but i was operating under the premise we're trying to get the board to understand the damages. >> okay. so that's important but not the request certainly should be clear it's in front of me i have a motion before me wanted to give the sponsor of motion an opportunity to respond so what you've said about the lack ever clarity if there is a lack of clarity on the budgetary dollars i understand your concern they clearing extended i
4:22 am
want to see if i misunderstood i understand you have to provide 3 reports to the budget committee i believe you will be able to provide i'm sorry to the full board on initiatives our fully committed to implementing so for me that appears this is just some accountability and age opportunities for discussion around an issue that is not only important to the city but our nation and worthy of the dialogue it is not clear i want to give the sponsor of motion an opportunity to explain clearly what will be expected in order to release the budgetary funds. >> supervisor avalos. >> really this is been what ivory net about the police
4:23 am
commission and police department i wouldn't impose what the metrics should be b&b but hear from the department what they think based on the work towards reform they conducting what i crafted not delicately but on november 1st, the police department tells us what the timeline of activities they will have on each of those 5 measures that are before us that to me is making sure that the department is fully in charge of they presentations to be able to put their departments best folded forwards i'm not trying to hamstring the department i would is cut money from the budgets this is not cutting money that puts money on reserve and so all you have to do is tells you on the use of force what will it take to the rest of the fiscal year to
4:24 am
implement the ihss policy to make sure that people are trained in the use of force policy what number of people are you able to train by january 1st, 2017, we've talked about this and i'm in no what you want the department to come here and fail but come here and assure the public you're working on the effort i know you are. >> i'll leave it at that i want to have a question for the controller and the budget analyst and i'll start with the budget analysts that works on representing the board of supervisors and giving us a lot of of the advise how we conduct business a reserve like this will this hinder there is talk from the chief that will hinder the department from kaifrt the police academy there are 3
4:25 am
classes supervisor peskin calls that pop come back. >> madam president madam president where is that coming from. >> you said the controller madam chair rosales and now we got. >> the controller and the budget analyst. >> mr. rose. >> madam president and members and supervisor avalos iceland say i talked with mr. rosenfeld as i understand supervisor peskin the first reserve on november the first. >> $10 million and then february the 7 and may the second unless the board of supervisors were not to release the funds no impact whatsoever on they
4:26 am
staffing requirements not impacts nervious system on november the first you decide not to release the funds so this is simply and retail use the department reports back if you're satisfied and release the reserve they staffing requirements will not be impacted in any way, shape, or form i stated it to mr. rosenfeld and he said he agrees. >> mr. rosenfeld you want to make some comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors ben rosenfeld controller so we've talked about it in my view the question is absent complicated and tricky certain typical practice are for the board of supervisors to place the reserves until certain conditions with met and they
4:27 am
have to your satisfaction those conditions are met and the funds released to the extent the other measures the department will certainly make the process for straightforward i think an understandable position for the department though they are and need to plan for the possibility that those funds might not be released by the board of supervisors that's the exact reason you're putting them on reserve i'm seen depends upset with the spending assuming the board of supervisors will release the reserve and one could take a view that see a situation that will walk into that to the conversation i do think would be important to the extent this go forward and commissioner avalos just the metrics that you
4:28 am
are expecting the department to meet are clear in advance to avoid any preset of facts of the labor to make that work as i understand. >> thank you supervisor campos. >> thank you. i want to make a couple of points first of all, that is interesting that some of us have been criticize criticized for strengthening the proposal that was put forward because when it comes to the occ the way it is and proposed that will still report to the mayor that is part of the problem but what is interesting about this proposal is that i know i agree with supervisor yee his comment about how when you have the new chief of please and provide deference to that chief and inclined to do that but i want to talk about small business
4:29 am
something that involved any district under our watch to me illustrates why for us it is not enough to simply hear from the department trust us we're making process on this reform we don't need to come and verify we are reforming i'll talk the specific case of louis is a homeless man who was the victim and died of open officer-involved shooting that officer-involved shooting without prejutting what happened is under investigation by this police department but under this chief one of the officers involved in that incident was still assigned to the unit that is supposed to oversee police reform not under greg suhr under this chief and so what do i tell the family
4:30 am
that called me the brother that felt it was a slap in the face that before they even completed the investigation they prejudged the outcome of that investigation because it how are they judging it they're putting him in a unit that's supposed to oversee the reform what do you think that says to that family and community and until the press the examiner record that you actually acted so oversight matters when you have to comment pub and explain yourself there is something to make sure that when you said you're doing is actually being done i'm sorry acting chief that instant hadn't of happens yes give them a chance but we have given you a chance and yet this
4:31 am
happened and we're not talking about the 9 denying you and your department of the thor million dollars we are simply saying come to us and explain what you have been up to i owe it to louis and his family to make sure that we don't just trust you and it is fine to trust we're to going to trust but make sure you're doing what you say you're doing. >> seeing no other names on the roster, chief you'd like to make a comment. >> i would supervisor campos if this hadn't happened under any watch it didn't greg suhr moved him to the standards when i was the deputy chief i found out it happened and the officers voluntarily agreed to leave it didn't occur under any watch but greg suhr he transformed him i was done you or as a deputy
4:32 am
chief that's imagine correct, however, when i found the family took issue the officer go voluntary agreed to leave if it happen under any watch but corrected under my watch now, did i do i have your support. >> your honor, acting chief of this individual was actually still working that united and so to the extent the decisions was made and combrufrp chief you're still chief so the question how many important decisions were made by the prior chief that you may not be aware of that you may not going to find out until an article in the examiner that is the point to that that the only way we're going to know by actually requiring you come here
4:33 am
and give us information holding you accountable but transparency at the end of the day is what that is about you may point the finger at the greg suhr. >> your acting chief and are not only for everything in our department maybe i'm mistaken. >> with all due respect excuse me - chief i have to recognize you chief i have a accountability to the board to required to report to the board you missed a deadline for the first report do you have any information with that regard. >> we missed the deadline i reached out to the supervisor in regards to that you know, i saw the report that was ready to go with raw data but the legislation required minimal
4:34 am
reporting i don't want- i want to use that as a floor not the ceilings there are numbers that need to be adapted by the department and explanation what the numbers mean what we are doing research and there was a i know a i expect a shift and make sure the data is robust we're reporting the same information for the department of justice i want to make sure that report is comprehensive as it can be and reached out and go apologized to supervisor cowen and in the next foe déjà vu the report. >> for clarity is that report required to be presented to the boards or to a committee. >> maintenance just to be delivered to the board. >> okay. thank you for that clarity in the future that would be helpful to have a letter
4:35 am
asking for an extension if you miss the deadline in the future. >> absolutely. >> thank you supervisor cowen. >> oh, there it is another attempt to muzzle me sxhoedz you're correct kidding angela your fair the reports that the chief called me and acknowledged i actually in agreement with him not looking for bear bones we actually want dictated to make sense and use i'm grateful for the leadership stepping in this is not enough and rising to the occasion and not presenting the floor but the ceiling we'll call a hearing and let the gi o and present them at the police
4:36 am
commission this is part of package of the legislation in most past to work on the allocate and transcript taints. >> this matter in the hands of board of supervisors. >> supervisor avalos a motion to amend this budget on budget reserve the police department budget and mentioned the domestic violence consortium were you making a motion anything prepared for that. >> thank you. i didn't make a motion on the $250,000 for increasing the cola for the domestic violence providers that is something that the mayor's budget director go said could be worked and looking at the fund on the budget that can be done
4:37 am
without a motion on the budget today. >> for clarity mined a cola across the board can someone in the mayor's office clarify what that cola is and why what the so many skorm there were supervisor avalos correct me if i am wrong the question the budgets for 2.5 portion profit cola for all providers in 2016-2017 and the mayor's proposed budget an additional 2.5 percent foyer domestic violence and this is for the mayor's to match the additional 25 that's we're happy
4:38 am
to figure out to include it in accident budget and a miss understanding not included. >> so mistake. >> that meek was getting resolved. >> on oth on other. >> this is an - what does that do what does it change. >> yeah. nothing so it is hard to sit here and weigh out the option that are before us we can vote to support the reserve; right? and the
4:39 am
chief will continue to do his due diligence and the money will be released but if we step back and look at the big picture politicizing a city government politicizing users the bucket as a tool to hold something that up or prevented you're doing something with accountability for law enforcement that's it i'm done thank you. >> seeing no other names on the roster, we are voting on an amendment for item number 6 so madam clerk on item of the motioning motioned to amend madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang no supervisor wiener no
4:40 am
supervisor yee no. >> supervisor avalos supervisor breed no. >> supervisor campos supervisor cowen. >> take your time supervisor cowen no sxhoerlg 5 i's with 6 months supervisor farrell supervisor tang supervisor yee supervisor breed and supervisor cowen in the descent. >> on items 6 to 29 a supervisor peskin. >> madam president can we sever items 6 and 7 and call the roll spacial on items 6 and 7
4:41 am
for the fit ever want to vote against the budget i can't support the budget being balanced with the reimpressive tax and just to be clear which is awhile there has been some politics relative to other measures i have been against the regressive tax legislation i can't vote for this budget that is predicted on the sales tax not good fiscal policy the voertsdz have not voted on notwithstanding i want to descents on items 6 and 7. >> okay. on the remaining items item 8 through 29 madam clerk. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim
4:42 am
supervisor mar supervisor peskin no on items 8 through 29 a off sorry i. >> commissioner chung supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are 11 i's. >> those items are passed unanimously on item 6 and 7 m call the roll. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin no supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are 10 i's with supervisor peskin in the descents
4:43 am
the ordinances pass on the first reading all right. madam clerk where are we on. >> 64 and 65 and one second. >> yes. >> madam clerk for the this particular are me calling the special order at this time. >> item 65 and 64 a special order but not the agenda i want to basically on the meeting up and do all the committee as a whole one public comment for all the committee as a committee as a whole call the item or open up the special
4:44 am
meeting please. okay. we're going to skip over the committee as a whole madam clerk to the committee reports items 72 through 74 were considered we the budget committee added a special meeting on monday july 18th and fartsdz as committee reports and item 72 requires 8 votes for the sections for items 72 and 73 and 72 is compatible with resolution to determine and declare the public interest demand did improvements and rehabilitation and conversion of at risk multi
4:45 am
for professionalism needs seismic and fire and health and safety and others majority had been ability through the i think development in the amount of $350 million and to provide for a special election on in front of 8 rim for the purpose of submitting to the san francisco voters to amend prop a improved in 1992 to authorize the city for go bond independentness for the amendment to the air force housing and is market-rate loan program for providing loans to financing the costs to acquire and rehabilitate and convert at risk multi residential unit to permanent affordable housing. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i'm speaking on item 72 i support it and voice any protest about not hearing the special order of 64 and 65
4:46 am
the parties have been patiently waiting this entire meeting. >> okay supervisor kim we'll vote on the items and get back half a been waiting a a long time to speak if we're trying to punish. >> not trying to punish you to could search warrant asked me that in private madam clerk call the roll. >> on 72 and 73. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim. >> supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee is supervisor avalos commissioner borden supervisor campos and supervisor cowen there are 11 i's the ordinance passed unanimously on the first
4:47 am
reading madam clerk back to the 3 first 3:00 p.m. approximately order. >> items 64 and 65 those items are the special order 3:00 p.m. they convene is a as a committee as a whole adopt on general public comment for a public hearing of persons interested in the matter that was researched without romance with the land use that amend to establishment the downtown presently fund for jooets and alley north west with the ocean wide project on 51 street 30 years the quit claim the city's interest for 3 of million dollars and 30 years the city director of prototype to execute a sale for real estate for the vacated area between the city and ocean wide center, llc.
4:48 am
>> you apologize to the members of the public for keeping you waiting. >> supervisor kim. >> appreciate hearing this item right now this is a a development project in the district i represent in the transbay area and this is part of a large neighborhood plan both in increasing the office and housing as well as affordable housing in the fabricated but also to dedicate the funding for neighborhood that have deficient or smaller parks and recessional areas i want to acknowledge the project sponsor and this case we're working closely and it is a complicated project working with a lot of stakeholders he mayor's office and my office to insure that the project that were fashtd with urban if i had
4:49 am
port from the neighborhood and community by which this project is impacting i do want to express my supports for the project this mark farrell does a straight vacation and the sale of jessie street and elm alley a piece how this large project move forward but i the president to acknowledge all the work that the project manager put in to make that a successful project and thank the mayor's office who is here as well both the mayor's office of economic workforce development as well as jeff buckley for working closely with the communities and our office on what is before us today. >> thank you okay with that a specific presentation or open up for public comment mr. buckly. >> a brief presentation by mr. buckly of the mayor's office
4:50 am
we're happy to hotel the presentation or staff would be available for any questions. >> if you prefer that. >> okay. >> please. i'll be very brief so we this is now this is the second minded a recess of the street vacation up last month you have a vacation of jesse that is necessary in order to build the first street tower to the height contemplated in the transit center two buildings as a result of this the first 3 tower nine hundred plus over a million square feet gross square feet of office one and 9 residential units and approximately 21 thousand square feet of urban room of the street level, in addition the mission street turn over 6 hundred plus feet with one and 69 room hotel
4:51 am
and one plus residential units and ground floor retail and libraries working closely with supervisor kim's office and with the newcomers departments we're working on this issue we were able to co-counsworking closelye stakeholders with the downtown neighborhood preservation fund that is approximately $40 million all of which can be used to use the mile radius of principle project that was negotiated along with the sale of street which the san mateo sale of the street within 22 plus million dollars so of the fund $33 million will be required to be spent on acquisition rehab and $7 million could be used for the velocity of new construction affordable housing, and this fund will sunset within 10 years
4:52 am
so those funds we expect will be i'd like within the surrounding area we anticipate those fund will be used for acquisition there was a express interest from the members in the acquisition and rehabilitation of the single-room occupancy but not inclusive that that use with that said, we have an array of staff from real estate and office of economic workforce development, planning and myself and mayor's office of housing to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much now open up for public comment if there's members of the public that want to provide public comment at this time please come forward. >> hello i'm keith counsel to the fdic resident in the
4:53 am
headache in wood fdic is the owner of 25 joert and has san francisco office in that building fdic previously appeared at the planning commission hearing to request the modifications to project mitigation measures that impacted the vehicular assess to the property based on the january plan for jessie street the planning commission didn't incorporate the requested conditions and modifications our counsel is re-entering her letter of may 4, 2016, into the record and request our mitigation measures are added a a condition of approve to the project as you recall 20 plus years in oak home city and prevent that happening here we
4:54 am
medication the effect of theed vertically impact the access to the use of property fingd is the loading downstroke is near the loading area and difficulties to use this dock and over soisz truck may not fit without blocking jessie street and not turn into the located joert and the project developers will block the trucks the trucks id lou gehrig to the property is not acceptable addition for the secured facility and rome the jessie street is a 90 angle that will result in vehicles hitting the fdic building arrest jourg the fdic staff sea concerned about the proposed closer of jessie street during the portion of the construction that had require - >> thank you very much.
4:55 am
>> thank you for being here. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm daniel one boost will that, llc the owner and operator of the property on 24 jessie street the sole assess so jessie street it could adversely impact them i'm specifically to talk about the proposed easements that were part of approval package they're not acceptable to fdic we've worked with the ocean wide on various possible agreements we've come to terms on the agreement but not negotiate a private agreement or negot the terms of easements the easements are nostril publicly dedicated and not for the general public comment and not the city and the developer
4:56 am
together any terminate the easements at many times we ask additional time to vacate jeert for the fiblgd and the developer to possibly the city attorney's office to negotiate changes to the easements and in the event the board of supervisors didn't grant a request of continuance we request the city and developer be directed to change with the easements or work with the developers such the fdic has the direct right through public assess or a third party beneficiary to enjoy the access easements absent some modifications the absence of jessie street have have an adverse effect and one final statement just to be clear we're expressing concern we're not opposing the project the fdic is the official statement they neutral thank you very much.
4:57 am
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening madam chair and the president and the board of supervisors i'm the director the will amount of african-american museum and speak in support of ocean 18, 19, and 20 project i first want to say thank you for the support of board of supervisors for the amount of africa without your support we wouldn't be able to xoicht our thought leadership and the supports financially helped us to garden our other donors that support the amount of the african we're located on third and mission and about two blocks from the ocean wide center project and enthusiastically welcome the
4:58 am
change in the ocean wide project and this engagement as a power full community benefit we hope that ocean wide complex candidates to culture and the community will attribute to the sustaining the business of arts as well-being in the neighborhood we know that you must have not only affordable housing and others single-family residences and a lifestyle of public programming the 22 thousand square feet urban room is about the souz of the amount of africa facility so we're existed about the partnering that and that urban room will bring in terms of
4:59 am
space so for all of the different diverse types of families in san francisco and particularly in the south of market area thank you. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors i'm malcolm on behalf of the the chinatown development center and here on behalf of a number of organizations with were not able to make it the chinese chamber of commerce and head start and as well as some others i didn't write down i know the evening is late i want to thank first of all, supervisor kim in working with the community groups to shape this project to improve that and also want to thank the mayor's office they labored and appreciate it this process actually went smoothly ocean wide was a pleasure to work with including
5:00 am
the representatives and got to a good place that made this better this is one of the first example i've seen of a project that actually stabilizing the community benefits process this neighborhood preservation fund will be absolutely critical to making sure that residents who are in place can stay in place and that's a key goal goal for san francisco i urge you to support this and thank you very much for all the support on this. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm phil on behalf of committee for a better bart and rejection in chinatown and like to second mr. joungz comments and urge your support thank you. >> thank you next item. >> thank you, supervisors i'm
5:01 am
anomie for the elderly and to support the benefits agreement that our community signed with ocean wide self-help operates the clubhouse and sarah wong operates the real chinese playground on sacramento settle we pretty much took over from rec and park with no staffing to run the community and they're running the programs at those two chibz without the funds and so we look forward to having this open space fund that had been created to not just refreshes the affordable housing in our neighborhood but to dress the tremendous lack of open space and open space programs for the children and youth and families and seniors i urge your support thank you very much. >> thank you.
5:02 am
>> next speaker, please. >> good evening this is been a unique experience for the board of supervisors at city hall i call silly hall i'm here supporting what you're saying in a parallel in the western edition where kim's benefits are supposed to be been you all watch out and make sure whatever someone about do something in my community they failed for over 10 years the stiffer the mayor took mental illness, mental illness of dollars for four block area that is (inaudible) i call the fill no more and i know you're saying you're talking about our community but people up here tubbing other parts of city i thought i'd come up here sat for 4 hours this is politics
5:03 am
at it best i call is poly ticking but this is a new setting back and refreshing i heard in the papers politics at it's worse i think that is at its best people got to see day to day what you're saying and see how how assembled back to the feel 90 no more ladies and gentlemen, we are in the state of emergency in the fillmore the redevelopment has filled us since 1948 pissing motives and motives of dollars what do we have today nothing the feds have closed our business every business that he came through what we call the
5:04 am
communities investment - >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening actually with reuben, junius & rose representing the project sponsor i wanted to briefly address the comment from the first two speakers regarding the fdic and the traffic circulation first, i want to be clear that just because we're vacating the jessie street didn't mean we're reducing ever eliminating public assess we're increasing of it a number of agreements creating for example through the urban room easements that will good emergency vehicle and create a new street from the where jesse termentsdz for the pedestrian assess so we will are assess throughout the site in
5:05 am
terms of the fdic we have been working with them pretty alcohol since the planning commission hearing and had discusses with them throughout this process i think the comment we've heard is a surprise as we've been working with them and having discussions as late as yesterday so we're a little bit surprised but hope you'll continue to hear this item and decide on this as the succeed is important to us. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> sfgovtv please. i'm from the manners a coworker are lead arithmetic for this
5:06 am
project just want to point out the two points which we heard from the fdic so for they count we're respectfully the council from the design point of view they're talking about the existing loading area so actively this existing loading ear we retired that assess everywhere i mean this should not be different from what they are doing and for the project up to the windows the jesse and also the second point of view we're talking about you know when the jose turn around and the truck can hit the building the answer is no the project reis closely this within this red property line there is a you know there is a column and that actually becomes
5:07 am
automatically a barrier to protect our building from any truck and hit the building i think as our lawyer said more communications and more look into our plan in detail will help to solve so the concerns and to let the project community-based smoothly. >> any other members of the public want to speak stimulate at this time. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i want to acknowledge the project sponsor work with the arts community the theatre of africa facility to insure the stability but answerable foreshadows that had been cast from the transbay to the
5:08 am
chinatown area that has very foe parks and recreational space and finally want to acknowledge this project will be the second project after howard street 33 percent in the 94 fee required by prop c that was passed by the voter the project sponsor committed to the level prior to the package of that proposition so again colleagues ask for your support and looking forward to see the completion of transbay neighborhood. >> thank you supervisor peskin and respectfully am going to parts ways or ways with supervisor kim supervisor kim's indicated that is a project in downtown core it does have impacts as far north as chinatown and while i understand that there's mitigations for
5:09 am
chinatown factors as much as i respect the folks from the chinatown and better rec and park and many chong from self-help if the elderly the reality you can't mitigate shadows once it is there it didn't go away it is significant shadow but they're also i think transcend problems number one we learned in american planning an urban plan many, many decades ago that reluctant number one you don't give up streets they're not making them anymore i'm talking about easements or reciprocal easements or loading docks those streets should remain open and assessable now and forever so with that, i replacing am going to part company with supervisor kim on this matter and descent. >> thank you supervisor
5:10 am
campos. >> thank you madam president i simply want to say i'm happy to support this item with deference to the district supervisor and say i'm happy that the museum of africa facility i see the executive director is here and i think that is a good development so look forward to this going forward thank you. >> thank you seeing no other names on the roster, just to make sure that the hearing has been held and is now filed and madam clerk on item number 65 call the roll. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin no. >> supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos
5:11 am
supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are 10 i's with one no, that supervisor peskin on the descents passed on the first reading go to the next 3:00 p.m. committee as a whole. >> item 71 and 70 comprise the special order for the board of supervisors to sit to pack public comment on the amendments made on july 12th motion to order submitted to the voters at an election in november 8, 2016, and ordinance for the tax regulation code to increase the real property from 2 to 2.5 percent ever $5 million and less than $10.02 point to 2.75 with a value of $10 million and less than $25 million and from 2.5 to
5:12 am
3 percent for the value of at least 25 mental illness to clarify the real tramp property tax to legal entities and increase the appropriations limit by the amount of taxation increase for four years from 2016. >> seeing no other names on the roster, i will open this up to public comment. >> for item number 70 and 71 pbtd on those items seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor kim. >> thank you. i hope the board didn't oversee the public comment but thank you, colleagues inch spoken on this item i had to make an amendment as requested by our assessor carmen chu to close a loophole on one specific issue and
5:13 am
colleagues he look forward to your support. >> just to be clear this hearing is held and in the hands of the board of supervisors and seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk on item 7 is call the roll. >> supervisor farrell no supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are hen i's with one no supervisor farrell in the descents the motion is approved all right. madam clerk let's go to item 74. >> an ordinance for the tax code for the translations and used tax at the one half of one
5:14 am
percent for 25 years by the transportation authority and administrative code by the state board of equal summon for the transportation expenditure plan designated he e dedicated the transportation authority to oversee the implementation and to further authorize the issuance of bones or other obligations to cover the - and directing the tax for approval approval on the general municipal election. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president this is a back up measure to the sales tax we have passed earlier today, i would move to table this. >> supervisor wiener has made a motion to table seconded by supervisor peskin colleagues we'll take that without objection. it passed unanimously
5:15 am
next item item 76 pardon. >> was considered by the public safety and services committee as a regular meeting on july 14th and forwarded as a committee reports it is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the dhr to develop this for all city departments. >> call the roll. >> on item 76 arrest plaintiff supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang and thank you. >> supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are 11 i's.
5:16 am
>> the ordinance passes anonymously on the first reading. >> item 77 through 81 were screwdrivers on thursday and forwarded as committee errors item 77 is a charter amendment first draft for the multiple draft for the san francisco residents not us citizens but is paerntdz or kevin caregiver to be able to vote in elections for the board of education an at&t's at the on election on november 8th. >> supervisor mar. >> i want to move to continue this until the next meeting and thanks to the grandmothers off personalities and communities and the co-sponsors supervisor campos madam chair rosales and supervisor kim. >> supervisor mar made a motion to move this to continue to the meeting of july 26th seconded by supervisor campos and colleagues offering
5:17 am
supervisor campos. >> expected to be voting for this but not a sponsor remove any name. >> supervisor mar made a motion to continue to july 26th and seconded by supervisor campos and continuance without objection without objection this item had been continued to the meeting next week july 26th madam clerk please call 78 and 79 together. >> a charter amendment for the charter to create the office of public advocates at the public advocates and duties with the public advocate to review the programs for triumphing information and receive and investigate and attempt to resolve complaint regarding city services and program to authorize the public advocate to receive and investigate specified whistle blowers
5:18 am
complaint and removal of she can't recall and set the following for sufficient fufrpd and minimum funding for the - setting a data for the next november. >> the second draft to amend the charter for the office of public advocates the paragraph is similar. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president i know that madam chair rosales has set of amendments that deal with police reform i have a couple of amendments i'd like to adds but begin by saying that i notwithstanding this agreement i do appreciate the discussion that happened around this proposal and to the dependent people are making this about me building i've got to tell you
5:19 am
about the government and this is about how do we balance not only the power that the people have been city hall bow how to make government nor transparent and accountable i appreciate the comments and thought about the amendments that are proposed and rules and where certainly incorporating one of the amendments that deal with the issue of term limits
5:20 am
- putting aside the legal questions that maybe implicated we building i believe that anyone who wants to right hand for the office should run for the office and includes people that served in city government before if this amendment were in place in new york city the current place public advocate patricia james would not have qualified nor another person prior a public advocate now the mayor the second amendment authorizes the public to select a director of office of citizens complaints i respect the position that supervisor cowen has taken with
5:21 am
respect to the occ we have a fundamental difference of police chief chaplain in terms of who should - the mayor has the fills up over the occ he speak as a form member the police commission and over the years i've seen 36 there's a level of staffing to the oncomore than a hundred and 50 cases by an investor yet that level of staffing not been obtained and i
5:22 am
believe that part of challenge you have a situation you have an occ and then a police department and the oak is supposed to provide the oversight of police department and yet what happens the oversight is lacking i believe that there is enhernl a champ the mayor who appoint both police chief and the head of occ that is supposed to provide the oversight i believe we believe in the coalition that includes a board group of people that believe in go government it is important to split the appointment to a different elected official gets to a appoint the head of orac occ th chief financial officer said no
5:23 am
group that has looked at add sfpd has said they're not moving quibble or doing what they need in terms of conform and i agree or disagree we have groups that pointed out problems and the allocate example of how even after all those the attention given after the replacement of prior chief we still have problems it is because of new attention given continued attention those problems are surfaced a reason why the supervisors that first introduced a resolution to ask for police reform years ago many people of the it was unnecessary and a reason for the supervisors that are including a
5:24 am
more robust proposal around orange the occ but this is not just about police accountability but throughout the government i want to say i want to acknowledge ben rosenfeld is here in the past when this proposal was first brought up a few years back by the supervisor serious concerns that were raised by the controller and i'm very grateful to our controller for taking the time to meet with us to educate us only some of his concerns so the initial proposal we've put forward that made the changes that included the changes to the role of the office of controller that's been amended out of this i wanted to note that and also know that there were or were concerns raised by members
5:25 am
of the labor council the trades in terms of the appointment of the head of the office of labor enforcement we have carefully clammed that and not going to make the change the interesting thing about that office an office by ordinance a poeblt to the extended there are changes that the board wants to make for those two happen i simply note that - i make a motion and colleagues ask accident clerk of board to
5:26 am
circulate the amendments that i've made and as part of motion i also move that we continue the amendment to a committee as a whole on july 26th that is procedurally what needs to happen happen and just to be clear supervisor campos the amendments the one page sheet specifically supervisor campos has made a motion to make an amendment is there a second and seconded by supervisor yee supervisor avalos. >> thank you supervisor president london breed earlier in the meeting he saw that the
5:27 am
public advocates and the department of police accountability deserve to be in the snapshot under an independent body separate from the mayor's office i have an amendment to motion that we emerge the language i have before us from the public the public accountable into the public advocates after supervisor campos's changes and essentially we'll have a new revised version of this whole public advocate that will be included the public office of the police accountability and so we're clear whatever the office of citizens complaints amendment we'll have department the police accountable ability and the public advocate appoint the correct of the police
5:28 am
accountability formerly the office of citizens complaints and so i'd like to motion that we put overseeing two charter amendments together. >> for clarity they appoint the person subject by approval of the board of supervisors. >> whereas the current yes. >> now? >> whenever. >> okay supervisor campos wants us to vote those on his motion first are there members of the board that want to comment on the amendment that supervisor campos is proposing seeing none, i'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the proposed amendment by supervisor campos. >> supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin
5:29 am
supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen there are 11 i's the amendments proposed by supervisor campos passed unanimously supervisor yee. >> thank you i want to say this has been interesting to know about that public advocate when i heard about that i read a little bit about that with they're doing in new york what i read was positive there were differences in the one that supervisor campos introduced and has been made and so forth i'm really happy that he's been
5:30 am
able to get input from other people and communicated and so forth and has listened to some of the changes they wanted i'm really glad that particularly with the labor enforcement this will be taken this makes it will more me a stronger policy or stronger position percentage and i'm also happy that it took supervisor malia cowen's suggestion in terms of the two terms and whether it is two terms or no terms this consistency i support that also thank you. >> thank you supervisor yee supervisor mar.
5:31 am
>> thank you to supervisor campos so for listening despite the treatment of you at the rules committee i think you've added in a number of the good recommendations from the rules committee thank to supervisor yee for making the recommendation two i want to say is so needs a public advocate for the checkbooks system and more accountability i think that supervisor campos laid out the benefits to new york city of they public advocates from safety money and creating efficiency and having more independence over government offices as well i wanted to say that i'm supportive of the eliminations of the organization l s c director from the authority of the new public advocate strorngz community and staff and other and feel that it is working corroboratively so i'm okay as well moving forward with the
5:32 am
different reformed a public advocates advocates for the people very will dpnl of government and the checkbooks system that is created by the new position like new york city is a good thing for populous and good government i will add that saving the city money where more efficiency is a question role that lee tissue and others advocates made i'm hoping with the controller's office and others finding that kind of savings is a good thing and hopes this move forward as was pass it at the ballot. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> okay. i wanted to make some amendments to madam chair rosales amendments i think one was just an error on
5:33 am
age 8 it is xofrmd by the police commission until the public advocates that is what the stated in the first line supervisor avalos i will make that recommendation to your amendment the second piece because the public advocate not voted in until an protection in 2018 i do want to make sure the department of the accountability can move forward as the charter amendment proposed i'd like to add is a line stating that until the public advocate is elected that the police commission will forward they nominee to the board of supervisors. >> and all other pieces remain the same they'd my proposed amendment to supervisor kim's and supervisor avalos to pasture that dpa can start during the
5:34 am
time to elect a public advocate. >> okay supervisor kim i'm completely clear. >> i'm looking at those amendments the first amendment a clear we want to commend insure that dpa can start immediately in 2017 the original tennis of the charter amendment while we wait two years for the public advocate to be elected what i'll suggest is either of the original language that in those to years that the mayor shall appoint the nominee or the police commission this forward they nominee as director that's what i'm suggesting to the authorize. >> either one that's fine with you. >> i'm proposing either one.
5:35 am
>> okay. >> so i'm looking at. >> i'll defer to the public advocate. >> supervisor campos. >> i am not i don't know i mean what in the original language. >> the original language the mayor shall appoint a nominee subjected to conform by the board of supervisors we can leave that has a language and specifically state that is in the years 2017 to 2018 and i'm looking at the city attorney and after the election after the public advocate the public advocate that shall appoint a nominee. >> that would be my preference. >> okay. >> so the amendment the friendly amendment i'm making for supervisor avalos amendment that the mayor shall appoint a nominee as subject to confirm by the board of supervisors until the election of the public advocate after which the public advocate should appoint a
5:36 am
nominee of the police commission agency the director subject to the confirm by the board of supervisors. >> okay do you have the page. >> yes. 23 line 4 through 14 and okay. >> and so this is what i would add prior to line 4 through 14. >> mr. gibner is that clear. >> it's clear with a few caveats first, it is possible that the public school advocate will be elected in 2017 or in 2018 depend on whether the board or the department of election called a special election between june 2018 so i wouldn't tissue it to dates. >> until the election of public advocate. >> right until the public
5:37 am
advocate assumes office. >> can i ask a question about driver's license that if there's a special election in one district does that trigger and citywide election that includes the office of public advocates. >> in the charter amendment will only be at the citywide election in the board of supervisors calls the citywide election for any reason in a sufficient number of voters call for a special election incidents what i'll clarify that instead specifically years i'll see the mayor should appoint, etc., etc. until the public advocate is elected avenue which the public advocate shall appointed nominee. >> the second the appointees the initial
5:38 am
5:39 am
amendme amendment. >> the mayor would continue to appoint. if that charter amendment had been placed on the ballot, the mayor would have appointed the initial dpa, and would have continued as the head of dpa. >> i would like to keep that for this amendment. >> the mayor's, appointee will continue to serve until that person is removed or resigned. okay. >> okay. and just for clarity,
5:40 am
we only pass supervisor cam's, amendments and not avalos's amendments. any comments? okay, we will continue the dialogue, supervisor weiner. >> i voted incorrectly, i move to rescind that vote. >> okay, supervisor, weiner has made a motion to remove the vote. colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes, i think we should continue the discussion on this in general, and take each of the amendments, 1 at a time fushgs don't mind. okay. supervisor tang? >> i think i'm having and i denty crisis, here, i thought we were elected, as the board of supervisors to advocate for the
5:41 am
public. although i understand the rationale behind creating this new citywide elected position, i strongly feel it is essentially creating a 12 member of our board of supervisors, especially with the recommended staffing of at least 1 staff member per district or 2 i'm sorry. and costing us 2.8-3.5 million dollars, if that were to occurs, on top of what the office costs, 6 hundred to 8 hundred thousand dollars. i don't want to disagree with the intent, of the city advocate to the public, this would be able to appoint 1 department head for some reason. right now, i know we care a lot about police accountability, and focus on occ and so forth. what if a public advocate came along and they
5:42 am
cared about public fire department issues -- or rec and park department and public works department, and they want today focus on that and appoint those apartment head, we're getting down a slippery slope, for an official to appoint a department head. not to mention in committee, we were accused of corruption because we suggested 3 amendments, the author did not agree with, 1 is taken today by this board. i think we were just trying to have a policy discussion about what we thought could actually make the measure better even though some of us did not support the overall charter amendment, all that to say, and i know today there is an effort to merge another charter measure into this 1. again we're not accusing anyone of corruption today it does seem this is doing exactly what we
5:43 am
were accused even worse. we as this members of the board of supervisors are here to be strong advocates for the public, i do not believe in the creation of this adegradational citywide election. >> thank you supervisor tang. supervisor, cohen. >> thank you, my question is to you through the deputy city attorney. what happens, if the public advocate doesn't pass? what happens, to the departments, organized under it? >> if the public places this measure on the ballot, and fails, the charter will not be amended, occ will remain in it's current form on the charter. >> okay, that is quite a gamble. my question is, can you go over the changes you are not accepting from the rules
5:44 am
committee? >> supervisor campos. >> thank you madame chair. >> i think as i explained earlier, i think the 2 changes that were made at the rules committee that we're not accepting is the first change that creating a ban on -- a 4 year ban on consisting office and public advocate, that the first change. the second is that the public advocate appoints, the head of the office of citizens, complaints. >> say the last part again. >> that the public advocate selects the director of the office of citizens, complaints. >> so could you explain to us why you are not supporting the 4-year ban. i think as i noted
5:45 am
earlier, i don't understand the policy rationale for identifying a group of people that cannot run for an office. i also believe there might be legal issues, beyond that and in terms of how that would apply in places like new york city. you have laticia james, you have somebody that was in city council, before public advocate, she would not be able to run, for city council and public advocate. >> okay. deputy attorney gibner, can you shed light why there is a 4-your ban that exists, that includes, members of the board of supervisors or lobbyists, when they depart from cities.
5:46 am
there is a protracted amount of time that prevents, them from interacting with city government is that not correct? >> right. there is an ordinance that was initially adopted by the voters that prohibits employees, of city departments from lobbying, their former department on behalf of a third party, for 1 year after they leave city employment, the ban applies, to the former board of supervisors their aids, the mayor and mayor senior aids, 1 year after they leave city service and those board members, and the mayor cannot lobby any department at that time. the purpose, it was a policy determination made by the voters, my understanding, it's primarily designed to avoid
5:47 am
former city employees, or officer, using influence with their own former departments, to benefit third parties. >> thank you very much. how long is that banned? >> that's a 1 year post employment band. there are other post employment restrictions, in specific circumstanceses, that last for longer, but the 1 year ban is the 1 that comes upmost often. >> is there a 4 year ban for the elected measure that we just dealt with? >> no. under the elected measure. the appointee to the board vacancy could not run in the election to fill the vacancy, but could run in future elections. >> what is the rationale that prevented them from running in the immediate election, as
5:48 am
opposed to the future 1. >> i would defer to the sponsor, of that measure. >> your team drafted this, you can speak to the spirit. >> as a supervisor, we follow your direction and the direction of the sponsors when we draft and that is really a policy choice made by the sponsor and the committees, and ultimately, this board today so not really -- i would defer to any board member to answer that question. >> sure. would you be able to share with us your understanding? >> i think that's not a question for me, that is a question for 1 of your colleagues. >> fair enough. i will ask supervisor weiner. >> you mean you want to ask the author. >> no. >> you can ask supervisor, weiner, no problem. >> maybe you can share with me, why do you believe there was -- >> through the chair, i wasn't
5:49 am
on the rules, committee. >> no, but you voted on it, do you have any ideas? that is fine. >> i have my opinions, but i will speak. >> when you are acknowledged, that is smart, i appreciate that. so ladies, and gentlemen for transparency sake, i think people deserved to know what is going on here. and it's just incredibly disheartening what is happening. before us. supervisor campos? thank you. thank you for accepting the amendment for term limits, that a stretch for you. that is the right thing to do. i still believe this the other right thing to do possibly be for if you are interested or any member of this body, should
5:50 am
consider recusing themselves from moving into a position that's on the board of supervisors into a position that's a public advocate, i will finish later, my remarks. >> may i respond to that? >> supervisor, campos. >> i will simply say this, when it comes to term limits, and running for office, this measure follows the existing rules. there is no rule that precludes, any elected official be it the mayor, the board of supervisors or anyone for that matter from actually running for another elected office. we are rightly and i support this, rightly precluded for a year, once we leave office, from lobbying the city, and interacting with city
5:51 am
government but that does not include someone actually running for office because the whole point here is this; contrary to the suggestion, this is about voters having that choice. if you believe that someone should not be elected to this position, you have the ability to make that case to the voters. so i think that in terms of the issue that i think mayor, speak for themselves. >> thank you supervisor campos. before i recognize the next speaker, i had a question based on your amendments, the public advocates, have an office with city hall. with city hall at capacity, would that mean another office would need to vacate the public advocate and their team. >> is that a question for me? >> yes.
5:52 am
>> the suggestion given to me, from the office of public advocate in new york there is a place for the public to go to a main place in the building where they can file concerns and complaints, that's why that was put in there. >> okay. thank you. but just to be clear, city hall is at capacity, that could mean someone would probably have to be moved out of city hall to accommodate it. >> i think if the voters chose to vote that probably would mean that. >> okay. supervisor weiner. >> thank you madame president. i won't be supporting any of the amendments today, on a large level i don't support this measure. i don't think it's necessary, i don't think we should move forward with this. i
5:53 am
suspect the votes are on the board, this will be the up to the voters, we elect the mayor and supervisors, if we're not advocating for the public, the voters have the opportunity to select someone else perform that role and to create a new office a multimillion dollar office when we have so many other needs form a rule that we elected 12 different people to perform, i don't see the purpose in doing that. i know in the example that is often given, i know former assembly member amiano, and his out fit, referred to it at some point as an example f you are mad about your parking ticket, you go to public advocate, they will take care of it for you. first of all, public advocate, according to this charter
5:54 am
amendment, does not have the power to reverse tickets, that is mta proposal, i think it's inappropriate for elected officials, to be interfering with tickets and citations, specifically a ban in charter for us to do that. and the idea that the best example that can be given is if you are mad about your parking ticket, go to public advocate, they will take care of it for you, we're going to create a whole new department in city hall, as supervisor breed mentioned, displace some other department, spend millions of dollars, every year, sow have some where to go when you are mad about your parking ticket. we have a process for that at the mta, we have all been mad about parking tickets, there is a process to appeal them. i don't see the point in doing this. it creates a new
5:55 am
bureaucracy. this is a broader context of 4 charter amendments, some we're voting on or we did vote on them 2 will be presumably voting on next week, is this charter amendment part of an array of 4 charter amendments, whether it's the goal or certainly the effect is to start dismantling the office of the mayor. everyone has opinions about individual mayors. you can love mayor lee or not love him, or agnos. every mayor has supported contractors, you can vote for whoever you want, i think it's important for the mayor's office to run the executive branch, and be politically accountable for doing so. the more you start
5:56 am
mri splintering things apart, that is less accountability, that is not good government. we have seen in this measure several departments being removed, from the executive branch, to the public advocate, the housing we're considering, multiple departments, of the executive branch, move to the public advocate. the board majority placed on the ballot, stripk the mayor of his long standing appointment power. we see on the mta measure removal of appointments of mta directors even though we have to confirm all the directors, the mayor appointed. you add up the charter amendments, whether 1 likes or dislikes, when you look at the form and context, this is about systematically dismantling the office of the mayor. mayor lee will be the mayor for
5:57 am
3-and-a-half years, there will be another mayor and another mayor, this is not not limited to whether people support or don't support the mayor, this is about the institutional integrity of the office of the mayor of san francisco. i don't support any of these ballot measures. when this comes up next week, i will be voting against it, the amendments today, i don't support either. as i said before particularly slamming supervisors, cohen well-founded charter amendment into this charter amendment, to make it more appealing, i'm not going to support that either. >> supervisor yee? yoosuperviso
5:58 am
y yee. >> people on the board run for different things all the time, i can understand when you are trying to get a job, going through the public process, that's why you have the 1 year thing. in regards to -- it's not to say -- i'm trying to find some similar situation supervisor is running for assembly you know that is not a similar situation. supervisor running for mayor that is not a similar situation, but there are several departments, within the city i think the departments the treasurer assessor city attorney public defender whatever k
5:59 am
supervisor camp where they run for offices, i could be incorrect. >> no. that's right. >> okay. in regards to public advocates, can be seen as a department, but elected, so it's not like we're giving somebody a job. woosupervisor weine. >> they will run it like a public advocate. >> okay, i wanted to draw parallel with that. i wanted to speak to the author, the supervisor campos, president. in your -- legislation, you have for staffing, concatenasupervi
6:00 am
member per supervisor, is that a suggestion or what. >> supervisor campos. >> we made it clear, there is no set aside, there is nothing dictated here, this is based on conversations, with other public advocates, it's recommended it's a suggestion, but ultimately, that has to go through the budget process, with the board of supervisors, so the board will make that decision and the mayor as well. >> okay. is there anything that would trigger that? >> no. >> okay, thank you very much. >> supervisor campos, i have 1 more clarification question. i thought at rules committee, there were 2 offices taken out of the public advocate, olse and officers, of citizens,